These beings, who aspire to be in the image of God, seek to fill the earth with their offspring as God has commanded, but they go about it in the wrong way, abusing the marriage relationship to serve their corrupt desires and seeking to make a name for themselves, following the pattern of Cain (6:4; cf. 4:17).

When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, ² the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. ³Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” ⁴The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.
—Genesis 6:1–4

Three Mysterious Groups of People

The timing of this episode is introduced in rather vague terms: “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them” (Gen. 6:1). However, from what follows it appears that these events occur during the lifetime of Noah. At this time “the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive [Hb. “good”]. And they took as their wives any they chose” (Gen. 6:2). The language of seeing and taking something perceived to be good echoes the first temptation in Genesis 3:6, so it is clear that this action represents a significant sin on the part of the “sons of God.” But who are the “sons of God” and the “daughters of man,” and why is their intermarriage sinful?

Three views of the identity of these groups have been argued, with the first two explanations both finding support since the earliest interpreters.¹ The first view suggests that the “sons of God” are the descendants of the line of Seth, with the “daughters of man” being the descendants of Cain.² The second view interprets the “sons of God” as (demonic) spirit beings, who engage in sexual intercourse with human women (“daughters of man”). Justin Martyr (AD 100–160) wrote, “God, when He had made the whole world, and subjected things earthly to man, . . . committed the care of men and of all things under heaven to angels whom He appointed over them. But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons.”³ Meanwhile, a third view identifies the “sons of God” as kings, who in many ancient Near Eastern societies claimed divine status for themselves as “sons of the gods.” These kings had the power of life and death over their subjects, and on this interpretation the stress in Genesis 6:2 lies on the rulers’ taking on “any [of the daughters of men] they chose.” These kings seize whatever women they wish for their harems—marrying not just one woman, as God intended (Gen. 2:24), but as many as they choose. Whereas Lamech first broke God’s pattern for marriage by having two wives (Gen. 4:19), these kings multiply that sin many times over by multiplying for themselves wives.⁴

Each of these views has able exponents and is defensible, though each has its own problems. The greatest challenge for the first view is that nowhere else in the OT are human beings described as the “sons of God”; on the contrary, the term consistently designates angelic beings (cf. Job 1:6; 38:7; and probably Deut. 32:8).⁵ In addition, “daughters of man” in Genesis 6:2 seems obviously related to the daughters born to men in Genesis 6:1, which does not seem to limit them to a particular subgroup (i.e., the daughters of the line of Cain).⁶ Moreover, some NT passages seem to reference the involvement of spiritual beings in these events. For example, Jude 6–7 speaks of angels’ leaving their proper home and sinning in a way similar to the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah in pursuing “strange flesh.”⁷ Similarly, 1 Peter 3:19–20 references the proclamation of the gospel to spirits who were disobedient in the time of Noah.

The main challenge for the second view is the question of whether angels are capable of producing offspring through intercourse with humans (cf. Matt. 22:30). John Calvin says the angelic view “is abundantly refuted by its own absurdity; and it is surprising that learned men should formerly have been fascinated by ravings so gross and prodigious,”⁸ though it must be said that ancient audiences did not find the idea as obviously absurd as Calvin did. Moreover, Genesis says remarkably little about the world of angelic beings, good or bad; on the contrary, it is focused much more closely on human sin and its consequences.⁹ Indeed, the transgression in Genesis 6 (whatever it may be) seems to result in a specific judgment that comes upon humanity, not on angelic beings.

Read More